Pages:
Author

Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 47. (Read 907212 times)

sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
I spent 2 days in developing a model for Monero price scenarios.

The idea was to construct a scenario tree with the following point-estimates:

- Price in 31.12.2015
- Price in 31.12.2016 on the condition that the previous price was X
- Price in 31.12.2017 on the condition that the previous price was X.

As prices were grouped in multiples of 10 only, it yielded a reasonably practical model that prompted to make 10 point-estimates and required the calculation of 145 scenario trees.

The results might be of interest here as well, tldr: in 61% probability you lose all, yet the average gain is 3700% in 32 months due to the presence of very positive scenarios in low probabilities.

This methodology might interest more readers if applied to Bitcoin, and I am willing to do it - but not without your help Wink

I have not researched Bitcoin that much since finding Monero, so I need inputs on the point-estimates. They are presented in the following format:

date, on condition of price range X in previous date
probability of price in range (30,000-300,000 USD)
probability of price in range (3,000-30,000 USD)
probability of price in range (300-3,000 USD)
probability of price in range (30-300 USD)
probability of total loss during the period

The major finding from Monero was that it does not matter much how probable it is to lose all, since you can only lose what you invest, while the upside may be several orders of magnitude. With Bitcoin, the gross potential upside is much less (essentially the difference in the marketcap of the coins, almost 1000x), and therefore it is more important to be able to accurately estimate the downside as well as upside.

- What essential threats remain that would cause Bitcoin to reach a value of less than $30, or become unusable technically? (Political threats such as all major countries banning it are relevant only if they cause the price in the free world to collapse as a result - historically things tend to increase in price when banned)
- What is the probability that a technical failure would make Bitcoin not trustable (break in cryptography type of event), annualized?
- How likely is the "shutdown of Internet" type of event which would damage Bitcoin's usability, without endangering the balances, and what would happen to the price in this event?
- What needs to happen for Bitcoin to languish in these very low levels an additional number of months, despite the great increase of VC and economic activity and adoption as measured by any metric available?
- If a new price growth surge is achieved, what mechanisms will be the determining ones to cap it and at what price?
- ... (the list of interesting questions that I don't know the answer nor have even much thought about in the last few months)

On the positive side concerning the research, I am good in statistical modelling and this model is tested just this week and is ready to produce very interesting results with Bitcoin as well, when we get the point-estimates correct! Smiley

Things tend to increase in price when banned if there are no legal alternatives. Alcohol prohibition in the US is a good example. Different story if there are accessible legal avenues to get your fix. Contraband cigarettes (much cheaper). Colorado legalized pot and look what happened. Price was about double what you'd pay from the neighbourhood unlicensed pot dealer. Taxation and overhead is the killer.

If governments around the world banned bitcoin, corporate, bank and government coins will have the green light using blockchain tech. Our mainstream decentralized dream is over. We're back where we started, with bitcoins used for internet gambling (especially US citizens) and buying drugs. And not much else. What would the value of bitcoins be if pushed underground for eternity?
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
I spent 2 days in developing a model for Monero price scenarios.

The idea was to construct a scenario tree with the following point-estimates:

- Price in 31.12.2015
- Price in 31.12.2016 on the condition that the previous price was X
- Price in 31.12.2017 on the condition that the previous price was X.

As prices were grouped in multiples of 10 only, it yielded a reasonably practical model that prompted to make 10 point-estimates and required the calculation of 145 scenario trees.

The results might be of interest here as well, tldr: in 61% probability you lose all, yet the average gain is 3700% in 32 months due to the presence of very positive scenarios in low probabilities.

This methodology might interest more readers if applied to Bitcoin, and I am willing to do it - but not without your help Wink

I have not researched Bitcoin that much since finding Monero, so I need inputs on the point-estimates. They are presented in the following format:

date, on condition of price range X in previous date
probability of price in range (30,000-300,000 USD)
probability of price in range (3,000-30,000 USD)
probability of price in range (300-3,000 USD)
probability of price in range (30-300 USD)
probability of total loss during the period

The major finding from Monero was that it does not matter much how probable it is to lose all, since you can only lose what you invest, while the upside may be several orders of magnitude. With Bitcoin, the gross potential upside is much less (essentially the difference in the marketcap of the coins, almost 1000x), and therefore it is more important to be able to accurately estimate the downside as well as upside.

- What essential threats remain that would cause Bitcoin to reach a value of less than $30, or become unusable technically? (Political threats such as all major countries banning it are relevant only if they cause the price in the free world to collapse as a result - historically things tend to increase in price when banned)
- What is the probability that a technical failure would make Bitcoin not trustable (break in cryptography type of event), annualized?
- How likely is the "shutdown of Internet" type of event which would damage Bitcoin's usability, without endangering the balances, and what would happen to the price in this event?
- What needs to happen for Bitcoin to languish in these very low levels an additional number of months, despite the great increase of VC and economic activity and adoption as measured by any metric available?
- If a new price growth surge is achieved, what mechanisms will be the determining ones to cap it and at what price?
- ... (the list of interesting questions that I don't know the answer nor have even much thought about in the last few months)

On the positive side concerning the research, I am good in statistical modelling and this model is tested just this week and is ready to produce very interesting results with Bitcoin as well, when we get the point-estimates correct! Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
Monkey thinks we're at a daily bottom in BTC, but does not see a longer-term upturn until June.  Monkey says: Surpassing 237 on the daily would make 296 the next resistance.  Otherwise, weak-ish support possible at 180.
Monkey continues to like BTC for the coming 7 days.
sr. member
Activity: 442
Merit: 250
Risto, what do you think about current market situation? Shorts are at ATH on Bitfinex, longs also at high level. Stamp ask side is more or less empty. Hard to do some TA lately since market was doing some crazy moves.

Any predictions?  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
This thread is showing symptoms of the wall street observer thread, just w/o the main troll, the socks and stolfi.

Considering that this was founded to be a parody of that one ...
Oh, this is news to me and predates my arrival on the scene by quite some time. Sorry for my comment then.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
This thread is showing symptoms of the wall street observer thread, just w/o the main troll, the socks and stolfi.

Considering that this was founded to be a parody of that one ...
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
This thread is showing symptoms of the wall street observer thread, just w/o the main troll, the socks and stolfi.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
I thought this was a TA thread? Maybe I clicked the wrong one.

Don't overlook that it was the thread owner who initiated it.

In general it might be good to read the OP so you know what's it about and what's not (hint: a smiley in the topic modifies both attributes)
I've been reading this thread for a year. I used to think I knew what it was about.

Okay good. So everybody continue doing the good work Smiley
full member
Activity: 175
Merit: 100
I thought this was a TA thread? Maybe I clicked the wrong one.

Don't overlook that it was the thread owner who initiated it.

In general it might be good to read the OP so you know what's it about and what's not (hint: a smiley in the topic modifies both attributes)
I've been reading this thread for a year. I used to think I knew what it was about.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
I thought this was a TA thread? Maybe I clicked the wrong one.

Don't overlook that it was the thread owner who initiated it.

In general it might be good to read the OP so you know what's it about and what's not (hint: a smiley in the topic modifies both attributes)

Yeah I know. I am finished with the trolls. I guess I punctured their hearts with a wooden stick.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
I thought this was a TA thread? Maybe I clicked the wrong one.

Don't overlook that it was the thread owner who initiated it.

In general it might be good to read the OP so you know what's it about and what's not (hint: a smiley in the topic modifies both attributes)
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
I thought this was a TA thread? Maybe I clicked the wrong one.

Don't overlook that it was the thread owner who initiated it.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
Some people feel that they need to get the definitions correct Smiley
full member
Activity: 175
Merit: 100
I thought this was a TA thread? Maybe I clicked the wrong one.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
...
No, you can not go back generations, using highly questionable documentation, claim some land that others own, and take it using violence.

As long we agree that "supremacy" is not a tenet of Zionism, and is just something you've overheard on stormfront.org Smiley

Well we don't agree on that, because as farfiman said, Zionism is the idea that some people have the right to take land that is already owned by someone else, by violence. That requires supremacy. He and you try to divert the discourse away from this, using non-arguments. I can only conclude that you are trolls.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
...

And the compulsory disclaimer:
Zionist != Jew. Zionists in my understanding are typically mostly not even ethnic Jews, and the supermajority of Jews certainly are not Zionists. Zionism is a purely political supremacy movement.
We are so OT but what the hell-  Supremacy of who over whom?
The definition of Zionism is the Belief that the Jews should have the right live in the Zion (The land of Jerusalem).
Any other interpretation is wrong and based on many other beliefs (some right , some wrong).

Here you go. They should have the right to land that others already own. That is a supremacy ideology.


Without going into the historical arguments from both sides [we will never get to the end of it ] - what does it have to do with Risto's so called Zionist takeover of the media and the world maybe? Is there such a "conspiracy" -maybe there is- but to call it Zionist is wrong- people that use that term are giving too much credit to the people that are the REAL Zionists. I'm sure one can use other terminology for such groups.

Nothing, but with your "right" argument, and no arguments against the political supremacy movement part, you seem to have to agree on it.

Zionism is not a "political supremacy movement," just like Communism is not a political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel.
Nothing to discuss, please read the definition.

You too disregard the logic I just presented. The right for some to own what others already own, can only exist if there is supremacy.



Are you implying that I, as a US citizen, consider myself superior to Native Americans? Because my house is built on land that once belonged to them? I can assure you that racial supremacy plays no part in this, at least not for me.

If you wish to reexamine who the land originally belonged to, it belongs to the Jews. See boldface.

No, you can not go back generations, using highly questionable documentation, claim some land that others own, and take it using violence. Just like some indian can not now come and claim the land your house is on.

legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1019
011110000110110101110010
What is Zio?

It refers to the "mainstream media", all the big and small media corporations that invariably are in Zionist majority ownership and factual control, throughout the western world. If you know of any other industry more so, I'm glad to hear. Smiley

So "mainstream media" as a term is a joke, I as a white married Christian am surely more "mainstream" in my country than the media  Roll Eyes

I think categorising ownership and agenda as just 'Zionist' falls short. I'd say it's more to maintain the Western power/elitist status quo. Maybe part of that is continuing support /funding for Israel? Possibly, but at that ultra 1% level power & wealth usurp religious ideals - take for example the Serb / Croat conflict where, according to Misha Glenny in McMafia, the two 'leaders, were dealing between each other (cigarettes, $$ etc) in private while espousing war in public.

Your explanation does not explain much at all.

If you think of the media, it's no different than if I owned a media. I have a certain set of beliefs I want to propagate, and the media is a tool for propagating them.

Zionists own the media, including Hollywood. It is nothing extraordinary for them to use it to further their goals. Just see what they are propagating every day in every media outlet.

(It is not a universal law that newspapers need to be full of insecurity and that type of shit. It is only that the Zionist want you to live in insecurity. I am not insecure. But I don't read their shit  Cheesy )

And the compulsory disclaimer:
Zionist != Jew. Zionists in my understanding are typically mostly not even ethnic Jews, and the supermajority of Jews certainly are not Zionists. Zionism is a purely political supremacy movement.

Self-moderated racist rant thread? Oh! Nice touch Wink

Shill much? Not one hint of racism so fuck off with your pathetic Libtard bullshit.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
...

And the compulsory disclaimer:
Zionist != Jew. Zionists in my understanding are typically mostly not even ethnic Jews, and the supermajority of Jews certainly are not Zionists. Zionism is a purely political supremacy movement.
We are so OT but what the hell-  Supremacy of who over whom?
The definition of Zionism is the Belief that the Jews should have the right live in the Zion (The land of Jerusalem).
Any other interpretation is wrong and based on many other beliefs (some right , some wrong).

Here you go. They should have the right to land that others already own. That is a supremacy ideology.


Without going into the historical arguments from both sides [we will never get to the end of it ] - what does it have to do with Risto's so called Zionist takeover of the media and the world maybe? Is there such a "conspiracy" -maybe there is- but to call it Zionist is wrong- people that use that term are giving too much credit to the people that are the REAL Zionists. I'm sure one can use other terminology for such groups.

Nothing, but with your "right" argument, and no arguments against the political supremacy movement part, you seem to have to agree on it.

Zionism is not a "political supremacy movement," just like Communism is not a political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel.
Nothing to discuss, please read the definition.

You too disregard the logic I just presented. The right for some to own what others already own, can only exist if there is supremacy.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
...

And the compulsory disclaimer:
Zionist != Jew. Zionists in my understanding are typically mostly not even ethnic Jews, and the supermajority of Jews certainly are not Zionists. Zionism is a purely political supremacy movement.
We are so OT but what the hell-  Supremacy of who over whom?
The definition of Zionism is the Belief that the Jews should have the right live in the Zion (The land of Jerusalem).
Any other interpretation is wrong and based on many other beliefs (some right , some wrong).

Here you go. They should have the right to land that others already own. That is a supremacy ideology.


Without going into the historical arguments from both sides [we will never get to the end of it ] - what does it have to do with Risto's so called Zionist takeover of the media and the world maybe? Is there such a "conspiracy" -maybe there is- but to call it Zionist is wrong- people that use that term are giving too much credit to the people that are the REAL Zionists. I'm sure one can use other terminology for such groups.

Nothing, but with your "right" argument, and no arguments against the political supremacy movement part, you seem to have to agree on it.


legendary
Activity: 1449
Merit: 1001
[
Read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and unbrainwash yourself!


That book is just as much fiction as "The Walking Dead"
Now go away.

I will not talk any more on the subject in this thread.
Pages:
Jump to: